'They had...child together': SC decries rape allegation in live-in case
What's the story
The Supreme Court has questioned the possibility of a criminal offense of sexual assault on a false promise of marriage in a long-term live-in relationship. The court was hearing a plea from a woman challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to quash her FIR against her live-in partner. The bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, raised questions about the nature of their relationship and why it took so long for the complaint to be filed.
Case details
Complainant lived with accused for 15 years
"Where is the question of offense when there is a consensual relationship?....she begets a child from him and then there is no marriage and then she says sexual assault? For how long they lived together? For 15 years?" Justice Nagarathna asked. The woman alleged that her former partner, who was a friend of her brother-in-law, exploited her after she became a widow. She claimed he promised to marry her but later abandoned her.
Judge
Accused was already married at the time
The accused was already married at the time and had hidden this fact from the complainant. Justice Nagarathna, however, repeatedly questioned the nature of the relationship. "Why did she go and live with him before marriage? Now we ask these questions; they will say we are victim shaming. What is this?" she asked, adding that they could have gotten married. She argued that in such relationships, if the parties part ways, it does not automatically amount to a criminal offense.
Note
'He walks out because there is no marriage bond'
"She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond....He walks out that is the risk in a live in relationship. So once he walks out, it doesn't become a criminal offense," the judge said. Justice Nagarathna stated that the woman's rights would have been better if she had been married to the accused, but when parties live together without marriage, they run the risk of walking out at any time.
Alternative solutions
Court suggests mediation for monetary support
The court also suggested that if the complainant was "befooled," she could seek other remedies, such as maintenance for her child. Justice Nagarathna noted that while the relationship can be illegitimate, the child couldn't be considered illegitimate and proposed mediation for monetary support. The bench issued a notice returnable on May 25 to see if a settlement could be reached between both parties involved in this case.